Understanding Volitional Movement in California DUI Cases

California Vehicle Code section 23152 requires proof of volitional movement of a vehicle to establish a DUI offense. To satisfy this element, the prosecution must show that the defendant intentionally moved the vehicle; however, the quantum of movement required is minimal.

Minimal Movement Suffices

In Mercer v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1991), the California Supreme Court confirmed that volitional movement is necessary to prove “driving,” while clarifying that the movement need not be extensive. The Court explained that even slight, intentional movement satisfies the statutory requirement. Padilla v. Meese (1986) is in accord, holding that minimal, intentional movement is adequate to establish the act of driving. Similarly, Henslee v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1985) reiterated that slight movement may establish the element of driving for DUI purposes.

Circumstantial Evidence of Driving

Driving may be proven through circumstantial evidence. Mercer recognized that direct observation is not required and that a factfinder may infer driving from surrounding facts. For example, in People v. Wilson (1985), the court found sufficient evidence of driving where officers discovered a vehicle parked on a freeway, far from an on-ramp, with the defendant in the driver’s seat and the engine running. Those circumstances supported a reasonable inference that the defendant had volitionally driven the vehicle to that location.

Jury Guidance: CALCRIM No. 2241

CALCRIM No. 2241 provides jurors guidance on the meaning of “driver” and “driving” in DUI cases, instructing that the element may be established by circumstantial evidence and that slight, intentional movement is sufficient. Jurors are directed to evaluate all the evidence—direct and indirect—bearing on whether the defendant moved the vehicle volitionally.

Practical Implications

These principles shape both prosecution and defense strategies. Prosecutors may rely on circumstantial facts—vehicle location, engine status, driver position, and other indicia—to prove volitional movement even absent eyewitness testimony of driving. Defense counsel can challenge whether the evidence reasonably supports an inference of intentional movement, emphasizing gaps such as alternative drivers, vehicle towing or rolling, or non-volitional movement. This framework maintains the statutory standard while safeguarding the accused’s rights by requiring proof of intentional movement.

The Best DUI Defense

The best DUI defense comes from experienced criminal defense lawyers. When dealing with priors your lawyer needs to aggressively review and challenge prior convictions and map a strategy for your defense. The Law Office of Daniel Horowitz is expert in DUI and criminal defense. To schedule in an initial consultation, call the office at (925) 283-1863. We have only live people on site answering our calls - no AI, no offshore message takers - Real People who know your case.